Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Mirza Nausherwan Khan & Anr vs The Collector (Land Acquisition), ... on 26 September, 1974

Special Deputy Collector vs T. Chittaiah on 28 September, 2022

12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236 : AIR 1971 SC 2015] ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238 : AIR 1974 SC 2247 : (1975) 2 SCR 184] ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 330 : AIR 1977 SC 580 : (1977) 1 SCR 329] ; Smt Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : AIR 1984 SC 892 : (1984) 2 SCR 900] ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made.
Telangana High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Special Deputy Collector vs T.V.Janardhana Rao on 28 September, 2022

12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236 : AIR 1971 SC 2015] ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238 : AIR 1974 SC 2247 : (1975) 2 SCR 184] ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 330 : AIR 1977 SC 580 : (1977) 1 SCR 329] ; Smt Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : AIR 1984 SC 892 : (1984) 2 SCR 900] ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made.
Telangana High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Special Deputy Collector vs S.V.R.K. Prasad on 28 September, 2022

12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236 : AIR 1971 SC 2015] ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238 : AIR 1974 SC 2247 : (1975) 2 SCR 184] ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 330 : AIR 1977 SC 580 : (1977) 1 SCR 329] ; Smt Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : AIR 1984 SC 892 : (1984) 2 SCR 900] ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made.
Telangana High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Barla Ram Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 28 September, 2022

12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236 : AIR 1971 SC 2015] ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238 : AIR 1974 SC 2247 : (1975) 2 SCR 184] ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 330 : AIR 1977 SC 580 : (1977) 1 SCR 329] ; Smt Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : AIR 1984 SC 892 : (1984) 2 SCR 900] ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made.
Telangana High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

State Of H.P. & Others vs Kanshi Ram Through Lrs & Others on 4 January, 2023

"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236]; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 2 SCR 184]; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:51 :::CIS -8- SCR 329]; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCR 900]). The principle that evidence of market value of .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidya - Full Document

State Of H.P. & Others vs Kanshi Ram Through Lrs & Others on 4 January, 2023

"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236]; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 2 SCR 184]; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:49 :::CIS -8- SCR 329]; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCR 900]). The principle that evidence of market value of .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidya - Full Document

State Of H.P. & Others vs Kanshi Ram Through Lrs & Others on 4 January, 2023

"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236]; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 2 SCR 184]; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:49 :::CIS -8- SCR 329]; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCR 900]). The principle that evidence of market value of .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidya - Full Document

State Of H.P. & Others vs Kanshi Ram Through Lrs & Others on 4 January, 2023

"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236]; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 2 SCR 184]; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:44 :::CIS -8- SCR 329]; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCR 900]). The principle that evidence of market value of .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidya - Full Document

State Of H.P. & Others vs Kanshi Ram Through Lrs & Others on 4 January, 2023

"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236]; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 2 SCR 184]; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:47 :::CIS -8- SCR 329]; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCR 900]). The principle that evidence of market value of .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next